By Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member

1. Facts of the case is that the complainant decided to construct a house and he permitted opposite party for making the plan and estimate of the house. The complainant made an agreement with the opposite party for construction of this house. According to the agreement construction cost of the building is Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh, twenty five thousand only). When the opposite party finished the work upto main slab he received Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. After removing the supports of main slab some cracks was seen in the main slab and the same was informed to opposite party. But the opposite party did not ready to cure the damage. Then the complainant made an inspection by an expert, who is a relative of the complainant and he stated that the slab crack due to the use of less quantity of steel bars in the warp and the negligent manner of opposite party. The statement of expert also informed to opposite party. But the opposite party did not take any steps to cure the defects of the warp. Instead of using 15,000kg of steel bars the opposite party used only 1000kg of steel bars. That is the main reason for the defects in the warp. Due to the careless, negligent and untrade practice of opposite party the complainant faced many mental problems and spent Rs.30,000/- for the IInd warp. Complainant asking Rs.2,00,000/- for the future difficulties and Rs.2,20,000/- for mental agony and for IInd warp, total Rs.4,50,000/- is claiming by the complainant.

2. After receiving the notice opposite party appeared before the forum and filed detailed version denying all things. According to the opposite party he had done the main slab work alone. All other works had done by the complainant. All construction materials were purchased by the opposite party. Opposite party had done all works according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The watering and other care and caution of warp was the duty of the complainant. The complainant did not watering the warp properly and fails to care the supports of the warp. The lack of watering and slip of supports are caused to crack in the warp. Opposite party says he had done all works with full care and cautions and used necessary kg of steel bars. Opposite party have to get Rs.25,000/- as balance amount from the complainant. After removing the supports of the warp the complainant noted some cracks in the main warp and the same was informed to opposite party. Some time the complainant showed the defect to an expert. As per the direction of the expert opposite party made an another warp on the main slab, using welder net, leak proof and bounding chemicals, opposite party spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- for the IInd warp. The same day opposite party done the work of stair. The complainant was fully satisfied the work of opposite party. According to the opposite party he had done all these works as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement balance amount of Rs.20,000/- and expense of IInd warp Rs.30,000/-, total Rs.50,000/- have to get from the complainant. The opposite party had done all the works properly, there is no negligence or untrade practice or careless in side opposite party. When opposite party asked the balance amount the complainant raised these much allegations for escaping the payment. Hence the complaint filed before the forum.

3. Both sides evidence adduced as affidavit and oral. PW1 and PW2 are examined on the side of complainant and Ext.A1 to A5 documents are marked. DW1, DW2 and DW3 are examined on the side of opposite party and ext.Ext.B1 and B2 documents are marked. Then the complainant filed an I.A.540/09, for receiving some more documents. Counter filed by opposite party. I.A. Allowed on 15-12-2009. Then Ext.A5 to A8 marked. Opposite party produced two more documents that are marked as Ext.B3 and B4. Forum appoint a commissioner for inspecting the property and the commissioner filed a report that is marked as Ext.C1.

4. Following points are considered in this matter:-

(a) whether any negligent or untrade practice on the side of opposite party?

(ii) If so what is the order and cost?

5. Point (a):-

Perusing the documents and admitted facts there is some defects in the new construction house. Whatever may be the reasons that is the mistake of the contractor, that is the opposite party. So the mistake of opposite party reasoned to the IInd warp. Both sides arguing, with the help of documents and witness, about the construction of IInd warp. But the material purchase bill was produced the opposite party and the bill was in his name. Moreover the complaint itself admitting that the opposite party has done some more works after the work of main slab. So we are of the opinion that the IInd warp has done by the opposite party and he had spent of Rs.30,000/-. An agreement balance was Rs.20,000/-. So the opposite party liable to get Rs.50,000/-. But opposite party's fault and negligence or any other reasons caused to damage (cracks) in the main warp. Surely that make many problems to the complainant and it will badly effected in the future development of the house. So there is a negligent and untrade practice on the side of opposite party. By these reasons the opposite party has no right to ask the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. These amount is consider as fine for the negligent and untrade practice of opposite party.

6. Point (b):-

The complainant raised the negligence and untrade practice of opposite party, the complainant got Rs.50,000/- as compensation from opposite party. The above reasons we are not allowing further compensation. But the opposite party must pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant.

7. In the result, we partly allowing the complaint and opposite party has no right to ask the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.20,000/- by agreement balance and Rs.30,000/- spent for IInd warp) from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant as fine. The order must satisfied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order copy.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2010.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the building construction agreement.

Ext.A2 : Copy of Plan and estimate.

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Lawyer notice dated, 03-10-2006 by complainant's counsel to opposite party.

Ext.A4 : Reply notice dated, 14-10-2006 by opposite party's counsel to complainant's counsel

Ext.A5 : Letter dated, 19-11-2009 from Public Information Officer, R.T. Office, Palakkad to complainant.

Ext.A6 : Notice dated, 16-11-2009 from Principal, St. Mary's Higher Secondary School, Pariyapuram to complainant.

Ext.A7 : Notice dated, 11-11-2009 from Secretary, Edakkara Grama Panchayat to complainant.

Ext.A8 : Notice dated, 05-11-2009 from Assistant Labour Officer, Nilambur to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4

Ext.B1 : Invoice No.1942 dated, 29-7-2006 from Tharayil Steel Agencies, Perintalmanna.

Ext.B2 : Computer print out of Tax invoice dated, 30-7-2006 from Tharayil Steel

Agencies, Perintalmanna.

Ext.B3 : Letter No.A-32/10 dated, 07-01-2010 from Assistant Commissioner(KVAT), Malappuram to opposite party.

Ext.B4 : Notice dated, 11-01-2010 from Principal, St. Mary's Higher Secondary School, Pariyapuram to opposite party.

Court document marked : Ext.C1

Ext.C1 : Report of the commissioner.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER